PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Coatigan said:
The charges have been published years ago. The supposed evidence and extent of how they got to them has not, but the charges themselves are kind of beyond debate at this point.
Click to expand...
Only in broad strokes though? Even the actual number of charges seem to be in dispute. Admittedly it's been that long that I might have forgotten a more indepth look at the actual charges.
 
Coatigan said:
The charges have been published years ago. The supposed evidence and extent of how they got to them has not, but the charges themselves are kind of beyond debate at this point.
Click to expand...
Well we know the basis for the charges, in terms of the rules and years they relate to, but we don't know the specifics. So we know we've been charged under rule x for specific years but not why (i.e. that we declared equity investment as sponsorship revenue, or that we hid player image rights payments and therefore under-declared expenses that otherwise would have led to us failing FFP).

I'll accept Stefan likely does know but outside a small circle close to the case, no one else does.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Well we know the basis for the charges, in terms of the rules and years they relate to, but we don't know the specifics. So we know we've been charged under rule x for specific years but not why (i.e. that we declared equity investment as sponsorship revenue, or that we hid player image rights payments and therefore under-declared expenses that otherwise would have led to us failing FFP).

I'll accept Stefan likely does know but outside a small circle close to the case, no one else does.
Click to expand...
You’re right but it is absolutely ridiculous. If the league publish the rules which it is alleged we broke they should also publish how they believe we have broken them. Can you imagine:
GOV: “The chancellor of the Exchequer has been charged with an offence under the Fraud Act 2006.”
Press: “What offence?”
Gov: “That’s confidential.”
 
Centurions said:
Only in broad strokes though? Even the actual number of charges seem to be in dispute. Admittedly it's been that long that I might have forgotten a more indepth look at the actual charges.
Click to expand...

Prestwich_Blue said:
Well we know the basis for the charges, in terms of the rules and years they relate to, but we don't know the specifics. So we know we've been charged under rule x for specific years but not why (i.e. that we declared equity investment as sponsorship revenue, or that we hid player image rights payments and therefore under-declared expenses that otherwise would have led to us failing FFP).

I'll accept Stefan likely does know but outside a small circle close to the case, no one else does.
Click to expand...

Sure, but the implication is pretty much the same, with either the broad strokes or the detail.
 
slbsn said:
It has been discussed before - here and elsewhere
forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk

PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Stop being such an attention-seeking idiot. You clearly know fuck all about this issue and refuse to listen to those who do know something. But just to try to hammer some facts into your skull, I'll respond. The evidence presented at CAS from several sources made it clear where the bulk of the...
forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk
forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk

PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Still nothing. See you tomorrow. 9:30….. don’t be late ;)
forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk

In short, it is probably some weak argument in the alternative and on the list of issues but not the predominant point largely because it feels bound to fail given the auditors must have looked at the issue closely given the historic allegations in 2014 and 2020. Furthermore neither Etihad and Etisalat are related to City in their respective accounts and everyone has different auditors. So either everyone is wrong and has been mislead or the PL fail. In bringing in APT they also admit they have no way of undermining the audited position anyway ie even if the PL disagree, they can't undermine it so needed new APT rules.
Click to expand...
The bumming Keith Moon got there probably still hurts.
 
slbsn said:
1. that is not the case
2. even if it was, do you think the PL and City would have let 100s of explainers go out without saying "off the record, you've fundamentally misunderstood the case." Both parties have briefed the numerous articles on the topic either actively or by not correcting them

PS City literally appointed Philip Marshall KC for his civil fraud expertise https://pmarshallkc.co.uk/
Click to expand...
Stefan when was he appointed please - right at the start or more recently ?
 
slbsn said:
There is a good chance that is there because if the PL's main case theory is proven, the consequence may also be that Etihad was a RPT all along. Although that would beg the question where that goes because if the truth turns out that the Etihad deal was only ever very small in reality, then the actual contract was actually BELOW market value.
Click to expand...
Quite. It would be a little like adding a charge of illegal parking to someone accused of ram raiding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top